The government should sharply limit the classification of scientific
and technical information, imposing "high fences around narrow
areas," and should "avoid creation of vague and poorly defined
categories of 'sensitive but unclassified' information," according
to a new statement from the presidents of the National Academies of
Science and Engineering.

The information designation "sensitive but unclassified" has
become increasingly controversial because of its lack of any precise
definition. "Experience shows that vague criteria of this kind
generate deep uncertainties among both scientists and officials
responsible for enforcing regulations," the NAS statement says. "The
inevitable effect is to stifle scientific creativity and to weaken
national security."

The statement calls for a new dialog between scientists and
policymakers in order "to achieve an appropriate balance between
scientific openness and restrictions on public information."

"Restrictions are clearly needed to safeguard strategic secrets; but
openness also is needed to accelerate the progress of technical
knowledge and enhance the nation's understanding of potential
threats,"the NAS statement says.

The text of the October 18 statement, as well as a "Background Paper
on Science and Security in an Age of Terrorism," are linked from
here:

The new statement represents views that are widely shared among
scientists and other interested observers.

But it is perhaps less helpful to policymakers than it might be since
it does not directly confront the specific disclosure issues
officials are grappling with.

For example, an influential January 13, 2002 New York Times story by
William J. Broad reported that declassified technical reports that
provided details of the production of chemical and biological
weapons were publicly available for purchase. The reports were
subsequently withdrawn from public access. Should they have
remained accessible? Should they have been reclassified (requiring
a modification to the current executive order on classification)?
Or were they properly "sensitive but unclassified"?

The Academy statement doesn't say. Yet this issue is close to the
heart of the matter. According to a cognizant Justice Department
official, the March 19 White House memo that reintroduced the
question of "sensitive but unclassified" information was "a direct
result of the ... New York Times story."

Similarly, there are already over a dozen existing categories of the
kind of "sensitive but unclassified" information that the Academy
objects to, including several that are written into statute, such as
"unclassified controlled nuclear information" (UCNI). Should these
be eliminated? Clarified? Consolidated? It remains an open
question.

SEN. GRAHAM ON BUSH ADMINISTRATION SECRECY

The Bush Administration has adopted a pattern of selective disclosure
of classified information that corresponds more closely to its
political agenda than to the requirements of national security,
according to Intelligence Committee chairman Sen. Bob Graham.

"I will say there's been a pattern in which information is provided
on a classified basis, and then what is declassified are those
sections of the report that are most advantageous to the
administration," he said yesterday on the CBS News program Face the
Nation.

"And, frankly, there is a piece of information which is still
classified which I consider to be the most important information
that's come to the attention of the joint committee [investigating
September 11]."

"We hope that it will be declassified. I think it is an important
part of our judgments as to where our greatest threats are and what
steps we need to do to protect the American people here at home."

The full transcript of the October 20 Face the Nation may be found
here:

Attorney General John Ashcroft last week asserted the state secrets
privilege in a move that will likely lead to dismissal of a lawsuit
brought by an FBI whistleblower, who was fired after she reported
irregularities in the FBI foreign language translation program.

"To prevent disclosure of certain classified and sensitive national
security information, Attorney General Ashcroft today asserted the
state secrets privilege in Sibel Edmonds v. Department of Justice,"
according to an October 18 Justice Department press statement.

The specific nature of the secrets at issue in this case was not
immediately evident. But asserting the state secrets privilege is
an extreme step that is all but certain to terminate litigation.

"In the past, this privilege has been applied many times to protect
our nation's secrets from disclosure, and to require dismissal of
cases when other litigation mechanisms would be inadequate. It is an
absolute privilege that renders the information unavailable in
litigation," according to the Justice Department. See:

The CIA and the Justice Department are making "significant progress"
in preparing to oppose a Federation of American Scientists lawsuit
seeking disclosure of the fiscal year 2002 intelligence budget
total, according to a new "status report" filed in D.C. District
Court.

But it "is a time-consuming process, involving review and
coordination among a number of affected subject matter and
classification experts [including DCI Tenet]. Their involvement is
necessary because the aggregate intelligence budget number is
classified, and there are major policy issues that must be resolved
in deciding whether or not to disclose it," the October 15 status
report said. See:

The Boeing Company last week disclosed details of its formerly
classified Bird of Prey aircraft, a stealth technology demonstrator.

"The once highly classified project ran from 1992 through 1999, and
was revealed because the technologies and capabilities developed
have become industry standards, and it is no longer necessary to
conceal the aircraft's existence."